Palestinian to sue UK for 'aiding Israeli oppression'

Bethlehem resident to argue British sale of military equipment to Israel is illegal, contributes to human rights violations; plans to cite International Court of Justice's ruling that construction of separation fence, which was built on part of his land, is illegal

A 60-year-old Palestinian from Bethlehem plans on suing the United Kingdom's government in the British High Court, under the claim that military equipment it sold to Israel was being used to violate human rights in the West Bank, BBC News reported on Wednesday.

According to the report, the man, Saleh Hassan claims that Israel uses military equipment illegally purchased from Britain to oppress Palestinians which, he says, violates their human rights.

Hassam will apply the argument that export of military equipment to countries where there is a high risk of human rights violations is illegal, making UK arms sales to Israel
against the law.

In addition, Hassan has filed a complaint that the Israeli separation fence was built on part of his land, and that bulldozers supplied by Britain have destroyed parts of his farm.

Hassan will be citing a ruling by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in 2004, which stated that the construction of the fence was illegal. Following the ruling, the Israeli High Court of Justice ruled that the ICJ's decision was not binding.

US court dismisses suit against Caterpillar

Last month, a US federal appeals court dismissed
a lawsuit charging that Caterpillar bulldozers aided killing and torture in the Palestinian territories.

Relatives of 16 Palestinians and one American killed or injured by Israeli demolitions sued the heavy construction machine manufacturer.

They alleged that by selling bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes, Caterpillar was responsible for war crimes, cruel and inhumane punishment and other violations.

The US government paid for the bulldozers, which were transferred to the Israel Defense Forces.

A lower court dismissed the suit and the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals backed that decision, saying that to render a judgment on the matter would interfere with American foreign policy.